"brian m. carlson" <sandals@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > Well, I split it out from a function that handles multiple path > components, mostly so that I could leverage existing work (and not have > to worry about getting it wrong). It wasn't explicitly intended that it > support multiple components, since I don't require that for my > implementation, but I could see future users taking advantage of that. > > I think "ends_with_path_components" might be the way forward, unless > you think something else would be better. Good; thanks.
